Yes, some Republican senators really are talking openly about Social Security cuts

[cawacko]

Because it is inevitable. By about 2037 the revenue will only cover about 70% of benefits.

Instead raising taxes which also reduces a person's total income we could cut/eliminate those parts of Social Security which were not included in the original law--early retirement at age 62, full benefits at full retirement age regardless of income, etc.

Many people know that but it's all about the game of partisan politics, and within that game it's not about economic reality but rather political power and what you can accuse your opposition of to gain/maintain said power.

What you said above, which is accurate, would get you accused of wanting to cut S.S. We hear people say the "easy" answer is to raise S.S. taxes except it's not that "easy". That's viewing S.S. in a vacuum, which it is not. Taxes can only be raised so high and there's only so much money. So when we do raise taxes there are a lot of competing needs for those dollars. So simply saying all new tax revenue should go to S.S. might not get total support.

The reality it it's election season and these accusations get thrown out every two years like clockwork. Just part of the daily routine by now.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You don't think Jared Kushner, Ivanka, and the Trump boys got their jobs because of their vast government experience?

No.

Also notice Ivanka testified and is maintaining a low profile. She's smart and is putting being a mother and wife first, daddy's girl second.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Many people know that but it's all about the game of partisan politics, and within that game it's not about economic reality but rather political power and what you can accuse your opposition of to gain/maintain said power. ...

Which is why We, the People need election reform. Two highly partisan parties running the entire show is not serving the majority interests of American citizens. One reason why so many not only are Independents but also distrusting of their own government to get the job done.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is when dad is the VP and he's getting a cut.

Prove it. I am good with convicting all criminals. I'm just not a fan of abusing taxpayer dollars for partisan politics and trumped-up charges.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Odd how the idiots who post Hunter nonsense aren't the least bit concerned over Jarod getting $2 billion from the Saudis.

Or his sister selling U.S. citizenship to anyone in China that came up with $500 million.

Hypocrisy and political partisanship go hand-in-hand.

Still, if any crimes have been committed, I'd like to see justice done. Just trumping up crimes stacked with lies is wrong.

 

[Flash]

Many people know that but it's all about the game of partisan politics, and within that game it's not about economic reality but rather political power and what you can accuse your opposition of to gain/maintain said power.

What you said above, which is accurate, would get you accused of wanting to cut S.S. We hear people say the "easy" answer is to raise S.S. taxes except it's not that "easy". That's viewing S.S. in a vacuum, which it is not. Taxes can only be raised so high and there's only so much money. So when we do raise taxes there are a lot of competing needs for those dollars. So simply saying all new tax revenue should go to S.S. might not get total support.

The reality it it's election season and these accusations get thrown out every two years like clockwork. Just part of the daily routine by now.

Also, raising taxes on anything other than SS payroll taxes destroys the political popularity of SS by claiming it is a government benefit you get only because you paid the money into the system. That is why the right attacks the left for "socialism" but they do not include their SS or Medicare in that category because they "paid for it."

All those other taxes mentioned in the article (wealth tax on assets, raising payroll cap) are all attempts to make upper income pay for the SS benefits of everyone else. We already get more back in benefits than we pay in, so maybe we should limit benefits to what we paid in taxes. Or, put that same money in an S&P 500 index fund and you get the amount when you retire. That eliminates government's biggest expenditure and gives the worker more than he gets in SS benefits.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That ship has not only sailed, it was blown up as soon as it cleared the port.

Citizens United made sure of that.

LOL

Yes, under present circumstances, that will never happen. It would take a major paradigm change to excite enough Americans to push Congress to change.

Think Pearl Harbor, the Sixties, Oklahoma Federal building or 9/11. About 40% of Americans don't vote and about half of them aren't even registered to vote.

If neither part can inspire even 10% of those who don't vote, why would anything change? It's the citizens themselves who have to demand change....as they are doing now. Sure, the Republicans will be gloating for weeks to come but they'll be bitching and whining about corrupt elections again in 2024.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...e-millions-of-citizens-not-registered-to-vote

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...es-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/

 

[archives]

Indeed. The far left Democrat Socialist loons, like Walter, are is full panic mode.

They post this crap and "pushing Grandma in a wheelchair off the cliff" every election cycle.

Poor Walter.

Pretty funny, the Democrats are socialists and the wingers like “earl” and couple up above are argue that the GOP loves Social Security, reminiscent of the GOP rally on Obamacare where one good ole boy warned that them socialists “better keep their hands off of my Medicare”

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Prove it. I am good with convicting all criminals. I'm just not a fan of abusing taxpayer dollars for partisan politics and trumped-up charges.

Two of Hunter's business partners have come forward now with photographic and documentary evidence as well as their first-hand knowledge that Joe Biden was involved up to his beady little eyeballs in Hunter's corrupt business deals.

Tony Bobulinski, one of the two who has both photographs and documents to prove Joe Biden was involved, went to the FBI with his evidence. They have failed now for over 6 months to bother to follow up on any of what he gave them. Given that the FBI hasn't done a goddamned thing with Hunter's laptop, hasn't followed up for a minute on his felony gun purchase, or anything. What's that say about the DoJ and FBI?

A second, yet to be named, business partner of Hunter has come forward in the last few weeks and he too is saying that Joe was directly and intimately involved in Hunter's corrupt business deals.

EXCLUSIVE: 'Joe was centered on the returns in the family coffers.' Whistleblower claims Hunter and then-VP Biden were part of a group call to discuss online gambling venture in Latin America - the president talking like he was chairman of the board

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-business-deals-VP-claims-whistleblower.html

There's certainly plenty of physical, as well as eyewitness, evidence to show that both Bidens should be under serious investigation into years of foreign business dealings, that Hunter should be investigated--and likely charged--for things like that felony gun purchase, potentially drug dealing, and a plethora of other fucked up shit he's done.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Two of Hunter's business partners have come forward now with photographic and documentary evidence as well as their first-hand knowledge that Joe Biden was involved up to his beady little eyeballs in Hunter's corrupt business deals.

Tony Bobulinski, one of the two who has both photographs and documents to prove Joe Biden was involved, went to the FBI with his evidence. They have failed now for over 6 months to bother to follow up on any of what he gave them. Given that the FBI hasn't done a goddamned thing with Hunter's laptop, hasn't followed up for a minute on his felony gun purchase, or anything. What's that say about the DoJ and FBI?

A second, yet to be named, business partner of Hunter has come forward in the last few weeks and he too is saying that Joe was directly and intimately involved in Hunter's corrupt business deals.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-business-deals-VP-claims-whistleblower.html

There's certainly plenty of physical, as well as eyewitness, evidence to show that both Bidens should be under serious investigation into years of foreign business dealings, that Hunter should be investigated--and likely charged--for things like that felony gun purchase, potentially drug dealing, and a plethora of other fucked up shit he's done.

So why hasn't the court with jurisdiction done anything about it? Trumpers have been looking for dirt on Hunter for years. Why was nothing done?

 

[Lionfish]

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So why hasn't the court with jurisdiction done anything about it? Trumpers have been looking for dirt on Hunter for years. Why was nothing done?

The courts aren't the problem. The US prosecutors, and law enforcement (eg., DoJ and FBI) are the ones that aren't doing their jobs. If they don't bring the evidence they have forward to prosecutors for charges to be brought, then nothing happens. The courts only try the case once charges have been made. It appears--and there's damn good anecdotal evidence of this--that the DoJ and FBI are being political rather than dispassionate and are protecting the Bidens from prosecution of what are clearly chargeable crimes. The US attorneys also appear to be foot-dragging rather than doing their job properly here.

That should be obvious to even the casual observer. For example, Hunter clearly committed a felony lying on a federal firearms background check form (the felony is listed right on the form for Christ's sake) about his drug use in purchasing a handgun. If you or I did that, we'd already be awaiting trial.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The courts aren't the problem. The US prosecutors, and law enforcement (eg., DoJ and FBI) are the ones that aren't doing their jobs. If they don't bring the evidence they have forward to prosecutors for charges to be brought, then nothing happens. The courts only try the case once charges have been made. It appears--and there's damn good anecdotal evidence of this--that the DoJ and FBI are being political rather than dispassionate and are protecting the Bidens from prosecution of what are clearly chargeable crimes. The US attorneys also appear to be foot-dragging rather than doing their job properly here.

That should be obvious to even the casual observer. For example, Hunter clearly committed a felony lying on a federal firearms background check form (the felony is listed right on the form for Christ's sake) about his drug use in purchasing a handgun. If you or I did that, we'd already be awaiting trial.

Why do you think the DOJ isn't doing its job? Why wouldn't they do their duty?

If you or I had plotted to violate election laws or stop Congress from carrying out their duties, we'd both be in prison awaiting trial.

I'm looking forward to seeing Jim Jordan and the rest of the Republicans to impeach Biden for this. If they don't, it means there's no evidence of a crime.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why do you think the DOJ isn't doing its job? Why wouldn't they do their duty?

If you or I had plotted to violate election laws or stop Congress from carrying out their duties, we'd both be in prison awaiting trial.

I'm looking forward to seeing Jim Jordan and the rest of the Republicans to impeach Biden for this. If they don't, it means there's no evidence of a crime.

Because they've become political rather than dispassionate and neutral. I explained that already. It's pretty damn clear the FBI is in that boat. The number of resignations and others fleeing as they got found out about mixing politics with their job lately should tell you that clearly.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Because they've become political rather than dispassionate and neutral. I explained that already. It's pretty damn clear the FBI is in that boat. The number of resignations and others fleeing as they got found out about mixing politics with their job lately should tell you that clearly.

It's not clear to me. Political appointees are certainly political, but not the career professionals AKA "the deep state" that scares the panties off political assholes.

 

[Walt]

Because it is inevitable. By about 2037 the revenue will only cover about 70% of benefits.

Well, that makes a lot of assumptions. For instance, you could increase the cap on taxes, or increase the taxes, and solve the whole thing. If we get a technology driven growth spurt, that too might help (though with the cap on taxes it would be harder).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They will be watched more now that Twitter is no longer a part of the DNC propaganda machine.

Lots of investigations...perhaps even some impeachments...after the elections.

The Republicans would be fools to push for impeachment....

Fox's The Five appeared to be unanimous in declaring a Biden impeachment to be a bad idea.

Earlier, on Cavuto, Pat Toomey and Ken Langone shellacked Trump for considering a second run.

So far no other shows have mentioned it. If Fox hiding dissent against Trump??? LOL

 

[Flash]

Well, that makes a lot of assumptions. For instance, you could increase the cap on taxes, or increase the taxes, and solve the whole thing. If we get a technology driven growth spurt, that too might help (though with the cap on taxes it would be harder).

The assumptions are well established because these people are already born and retiring (2010-2030) when the number drawing benefits will double. I've not seen anything showing increasing the cap would solve the problem. Much of the increased revenues would be consumed by increased benefits. Increased payroll taxes would hurt the lower income the most.
Some of the proposals I listed do not take benefits away from anyone strongly relying on them.

A person who works full time when hitting full retirement age (66 and soon 67) is probably at their peak earning level and does not need additional income in SS benefits and instead use this money to cover the revenue shortfall. Originally, there was no early retirement and today about 70+% retire early putting a burden on benefits. A large number than expected (4 million) retired during the pandemic.

 

[cawacko]

Also, raising taxes on anything other than SS payroll taxes destroys the political popularity of SS by claiming it is a government benefit you get only because you paid the money into the system. That is why the right attacks the left for "socialism" but they do not include their SS or Medicare in that category because they "paid for it."

All those other taxes mentioned in the article (wealth tax on assets, raising payroll cap) are all attempts to make upper income pay for the SS benefits of everyone else. We already get more back in benefits than we pay in, so maybe we should limit benefits to what we paid in taxes. Or, put that same money in an S&P 500 index fund and you get the amount when you retire. That eliminates government's biggest expenditure and gives the worker more than he gets in SS benefits.

You remember the response I received in another thread when I called Social Security an entitlement (which is the government term for it). I got push back because they thought I was claiming it was a welfare program. Well exactly as you said, you increase taxes and now it does become much more of a welfare program and there have been people on the left arguing against such an action because they feel a welfare program would be easier to cut in the future.

 

[Lionfish]

And it will cost the Democrats 2024. Clinton was smart enough to see which side his bread was buttered on and worked with Republicans to get stuff done. It got him reelected. Biden is too stupid and mean to do likewise.

Correct. Over his last term, Clinton did a good job.